Supreme Court quashes cancellation of land allotment after 13 years: Smt. Shyamo Devi vs. State of UP (2024)

Date of the Judgment: May 16, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 430
Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Aravind Kumar, J.
Can a land allotment be cancelled after 13 years, even if there’s no specific time limit in the law? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving villagers in Uttar Pradesh, who had been allotted land for housing. The Court examined whether the state government could cancel land allotments made to villagers after a significant period, particularly when the land was later claimed to be reserved for a Panchayat Ghar. The two-judge bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Aravind Kumar delivered the judgment.

Case Background

In 1969-70, a plot of land in Rampur Kedhar Village, Uttar Pradesh, was designated for a Panchayat Ghar. However, in 1993, it was deemed unsuitable for that purpose. Following a request from the village Pradhan, a portion of the land was reassigned for residential use by the Assistant Collector. Subsequently, in 1994, different plots within this survey number were allotted to various individuals, including the petitioners, under Section 122-C(i)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UPZALR Act). These villagers constructed homes and have been residing there.

Thirteen years later, in 2007, the Secretary/Lekhpal of Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, Rampur, reported that the land was originally designated as Panchayat Ghar and classified under Section 132 of the UPZALR Act. He claimed the allotments were unlawful and proposed their cancellation. The Tehsildar forwarded this proposal to the District Magistrate on June 18, 2007, leading to show cause notices issued to the petitioners on July 5, 2007. The petitioners objected, arguing that the proceedings should have been initiated within three years of the allotment. The Additional Collector, on February 7, 2008, rejected this argument, stating that no time limit applied to suo moto actions under Section 122-C(6) of the UPZALR Act.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Collector ruled that since the action was suo moto, no limitation applied under Section 122-C(6) of the UPZALR Act. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision petition filed against the Additional Collector’s order. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was also dismissed. The High Court held that the revision petition was not maintainable under Section 122-C(7) of the UPZALR Act and upheld the Additional Collector’s decision regarding limitation. The petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provisions at play in this case are:

• Section 122-C of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UPZALR Act): This section deals with the allotment of land for housing sites for agricultural laborers and village artisans. Sub-section (6) empowers the Collector to inquire into the regularity of allotments and cancel them if found irregular.
  
  “122C (6) The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land under this section inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment, and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment, and thereupon the right, title and interest of the allottee and of every other person claiming through him in the land allotted shall cease.”
• Section 132 of the UPZALR Act: This section relates to the management of land for public purposes, including Panchayat Ghars.
• Section 143 of the UPZALR Act: This section deals with the use of land for purposes not connected with agriculture, horticulture, or animal husbandry, requiring prior permission.

The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 122-C(6) of the UPZALR Act, specifically whether the Collector’s power to cancel an irregular allotment can be exercised at any time, even without a prescribed limitation period.

Arguments

Arguments of the State:

• The State argued that the allotment of land was illegal and fraudulent since the land was reserved for a Panchayat Ghar under Section 132 of the UPZALR Act.
• They contended that fraud vitiates all acts and that the revenue authorities were empowered to cancel the illegal allotment at any time, as no limitation was specified under Section 122-C(6) of the UPZALR Act.
• The State also argued that the villagers had used the land for residential purposes without obtaining permission under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act.

Arguments of the Villagers:

• The villagers argued that the proceedings for cancellation were initiated after 13 years from the date of allotment, which was beyond a reasonable period.
• They contended that the authorities should have initiated the proceedings within three years of the allotment.
• They also argued that they were poor, rustic villagers who were allotted land by the authorities and had constructed their houses on the allotted land.

The State relied on the principle that fraud vitiates all acts, while the villagers emphasized the lack of a specific time limit for initiating cancellation proceedings, arguing that such actions should be taken within a reasonable time.

Innovativeness of the argument: The villagers’ argument that the absence of a limitation period does not imply an unlimited time frame for action was particularly innovative and crucial in this case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the suo moto power of the Collector under Section 122-C(6) of the UPZALR Act to cancel an irregular allotment can be exercised at any time, or whether it is subject to a reasonable time limit.
2. Whether the cancellation of allotment after 13 years was justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court referred to Additional Commissioner, Revenue and Others v. Akhalaq Hussain and Another, (2020) 4 SCC 507* to highlight the powers of the Collector under Section 122-C(6) of UPZALR Act to cancel irregular allotments.
• The Court relied on State of Punjab Vs. Bhatinda Milk Producer Union Limited, (2007) 11 SCC 363* to emphasize that even in the absence of a prescribed limitation period, statutory authorities must exercise their powers within a reasonable time.
• The Court applied the principles laid down in Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy, (2003) 7 SCC 667* to hold that suo moto powers, even in cases of fraud, must be exercised within a reasonable time, and that the 13-year delay was unreasonable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Unreasonable Delay: The 13-year delay in initiating cancellation proceedings was considered unreasonable. The court emphasized that even in the absence of a specific limitation period, the power to cancel allotments must be exercised within a reasonable time.
• Lack of Fraud: The Court noted that there was no evidence of fraud by the villagers. The initial report by the Lekhpal did not allege any fraud, and the subsequent claims of forgery were unsubstantiated.
• Hardship to Villagers: The Court considered the fact that the villagers were poor, had constructed their homes on the allotted land, and had been residing there for many years. Upsetting their settled lives after such a long time would cause significant injustice.

The ratio of fact to law indicates that the factual aspects of the case, such as the delay and the hardship to the villagers, weighed more heavily in the Court’s decision than purely legal considerations.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that even when a statute does not specify a limitation period, the power must be exercised within a reasonable time. The Court also emphasized that the delay of 13 years in initiating cancellation proceedings was unreasonable, particularly in the absence of any fraud on the part of the villagers. The Court also took into consideration the fact that the villagers were poor and had constructed their homes on the allotted land.

The Court considered the argument that fraud vitiates all acts but found no evidence of fraud on the part of the villagers. The Court noted that the initial report by the Lekhpal did not allege any fraud, and the subsequent claims of forgery were unsubstantiated. The Court also rejected the argument that the land was reserved for a Panchayat Ghar, as the land was deemed unsuitable for that purpose in 1993.

The Supreme Court held that the suo moto power under Section 122-C(6) of the UPZALR Act must be exercised within a reasonable time, even in the absence of a prescribed limitation period. The Court found that the 13-year delay in initiating cancellation proceedings was unreasonable and that there was no evidence of fraud by the villagers. The Court also considered the hardship that would be caused to the villagers if their allotments were cancelled after such a long time. The Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the lower authorities.

“It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors.”

“Where a statute provides any suo motu power of revision without prescribing any period of limitation, the power must be exercised within a reasonable time and what is “reasonable time” has to be determined on the facts of each case.”

“The action of the Joint Collector in exercising suo motu power after several years and not within reasonable period and passing orders cancelling validation certificates given by the Tahsildar, as rightly held by the High Court, could not be sustained.”

Key Takeaways

• Even when a law does not specify a time limit for taking action, authorities must act within a reasonable time.
• Land allotments cannot be cancelled after a long delay without a strong reason, such as fraud.
• Courts will consider the hardship caused to individuals when deciding on land allotment cases.
• The principle that fraud vitiates all acts cannot be applied without proper evidence of fraud.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order dated 19.01.2010, as well as the order dated 07.02.2008, passed by the Additional Collector and the order dated 23.09.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that even in the absence of a specific limitation period, the suo moto power of the Collector under Section 122-C(6) of the UPZALR Act must be exercised within a reasonable time. This judgment clarifies that the absence of a limitation period does not grant authorities unlimited power to act at any time and reinforces the principle of reasonable time in administrative actions. This case also reinforces that the principle of “fraud vitiates all acts” cannot be applied without proper evidence of fraud.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Smt. Shyamo Devi vs. State of UP (2024) sets a significant precedent by emphasizing the importance of reasonable time in administrative actions, even when no specific limitation period is prescribed. The Court quashed the cancellation of land allotments after a 13-year delay, protecting the rights of villagers who had built homes on the allotted land. This ruling highlights the need for authorities to act promptly and justly, ensuring that the rights of individuals are not unjustly affected by delayed actions.